Apparent vs. "True" Achronycal and Cosmical Rising/Setting

Although I think the calculations for the heliacal rising/setting seem to be correct, the acronycal rise/set and cosmical rise/set dates seem to be almost six months different when compared to other calculations of the same object at the same location, same elevation, and same year.

Is it possible that Stellarium is computing a "true" acronycal rise/set and a "true" cosmical rise/set instead of apparent dates? If so, what is the necessary correction?

Related bugs

Related FAQ:

Cosmic and acronychic rise and set are purely geometric, unobservable. Cosmic rise (rising together with the sun) is usually somewhat before Heliacal rise, etc. I am not aware of "apparent" models for cosmic/acronychal. Paper hints welcome, together with working code even more.

Net result: The terminology is sometimes reversed in the literature. So our acronychal setting may be other authors' cosmical setting etc, but Stellarium's plugin description declares our reading of the terminology.

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask
Anthony Kaye
for more information if necessary.